How do you know he has missed that?
Puddle Duck missed relevant documentation because he speculates on things that are provided in that documentation. He would not have had to speculate if he had read the documentation.
And it's probably possible to get hold of a menu for the best restaurant in Teheran. Exactly what has radar analysis to do with tapes of plane/tower communication? You just jumble the issue with unrelated comments. I think it's on purpose by now.
Puddle Duck stated:
“I would also love to see the scope film of the 2nd bird if it ever existed, to see what was going on with the radar.”
I replied with a link of the radar analysis. I was providing him the information he was interested in. Yet you claim my response was a “jumble” of the issue and “unrelated”…? You can do better than that Jocce.
There is no reason to belive that SOP's differ because they emanate more from plane prestanda than personal preference. Also, if you understood what density altitude of 8000 feet means at takeoff you would also understand how this makes it even more unlikely. But then again, you're not a pilot.
Btw, you're trying to use a narrative as evidence again. It's a gdmn story, not evidence.
No, they are a combination of plane capability and airport functionality (including safety and environmental factors). Each airport around the world has a different set of “standards”.
“When I talked to Henry in late 1982 he still remembered the night, 6 years before, when he was rudely awakened by the loud roar of jets taking off at full speed. At that time he lived close to the Shahroki Air Field in Hamadan, Iran. Jets taking off at full speed at night and “with afterburner” were a rarity, he said. Henry was an employee of the Westinghouse Corp. and he was in Iran to help maintain the avionics, including radar, in the F-4 Phantom jets that the Iranians had bought several years earlier. Although he did not know the reason for the high speed takeoffs at the time they occurred, he found out the next day:”
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
Puddle Duck explained why he has, on a few occassions made a military power takeoff. It's not at all contradictory. You question his expertise while in the same sentence saying you don't know what military power is? It's laughable.
Puddle Duck stated that:
“F-4s always use full burner and take off at “full speed”, whatever that means.. I only used a military power take off a couple of times and those were on FCFs (functional test flights) looking for something specific.”
Yet we have the man on the scene stating that such a thing was a rare occurrence. I tend to believe the man on the scene rather than the speculations, over 30 years later, of someone who knows nothing of the SOP at that time at that airbase.
Hmm, ok. Given that you don't know so much about beepers (either). How do you come to the conclusion that it probably has something to do with the UFO? Unfounded speculation at work son.
Given that the “beeper” signal was heard on three separate occasions and no aircraft identified from which such a signal could have come from and given that the UFO was the only other thing in the air at the time, it is a reasonable inference that the “signals” were related to the UFO activity. Not unfounded speculation, a reasonable inference.
And this is in your expert opinion?
No “expert” opinion needed. It is merely reasonable to assume, given the conversations that were reported between the pilots and their base that they did relay information they were getting from the UFO back to base.
You have two options. Search and destroy or ID. What do you think is more reasonable?
Actually Puddle Duck qualified “ID” with a low cruising speed (for an F-4). I merely contended that actually they would NOT have wanted to mess around finding out WHAT the object was…they would have wanted to get out there quickly (hence the Mach speeds reported). Puddle Duck’s option was a leisurely cruise (for an F-4), while the reported facts indicated that the F-4s were actually travelling at high speed. That was my point.
Puddle Duck speculated:
”… he probably climbed to about 20k ft MSL till he got to within 50-40 miles of the bogey, then descended.”
Pure speculation again…
As a contrast to your own speculations, this is an educated opinion from an experienced pilot. It holds far more weight than your ramblings.
Puddle Duck was speculating, I was quoting the facts in the case. For example:
“The Air Force message continues, “The crew descended from their altitude of 26,000 ft to 15,000 ft and continued to observe and mark the object’s position.”
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
Interesting that wikipedia suddenly is a trustworthy source. You seem to dislike it quite a bit when it goes against your belief system.
Convenience only. I was able to verify the specs from other sources BEFORE I posted that site. For example here: (
http://www.airclassicsmuseum.org/Collection/F-4 - Phantom.htm) and here (
http://www.marchfield.org/f4c.htm) and so on… so no contention there when it comes to knowledge widely available.
ROFLMAO. SOP of UFO's. You're really funny.
Yes, SOP of UFOs. Funny how you know so little of the literature on UFO cases. Perhaps that’s why you keep “arguing from ignorance” on the subject?
What is really funny is that you don't even realize what he's talking about. Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your huge ego. An expert opinion will always be worth more that uneducated guesses.
I simply made a refutation of Puddle Ducks substantive points. Those refutations will stand or fall on the evidence.
So far the only thing that people have come up with against those refutations is the radar specs …but you will not that I posed a question there. Not a statement.
“
You mean the F-4 is radar “blind” in all directions except directly in front? I find that hard to believe.”
Admittedly I perhaps should have left it at the question and not included the
“I find it hard to believe” bit... but Puddle Duck was dishing out so much unfounded assertion that he was (IMO) destroying his own “expertise” on F-4s - and I then found myself questioning anything he might have to say. And if that is the ONLY thing people can come up with against my refutation, then I'll take it.
I repeat. An expert opinion is only valuable in the applicable field. When person tries to use their “expert” status in one field to speculate about other fields, his opinions are then no better or worse than any lay person so speculating on the same topic.
